* IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 21.04.2015 + W.P.(C) 3769/2015 HONDA CARS INDIA LIMITED .... Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR .... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For Petitioner : Mr Amit Shrivastava For Respondents : Mr Rohit Madan with Mr Akash Vajpai CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents. Since facts are not in dispute we are taking up this matter for disposal at first instance itself. 2. petitioner has filed appeal being ITA No. 2056/Del/2014 before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, being aggrieved by order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), on 31.03.2014. Assessing Officer had raised demand, which was reduced in appeal by Commissioner of WP(C) 3500/2015 & 3616/2015 Page 1 of 4 Income Tax (Appeals), to approximately Rs 327 crores. At stage, prior to decision by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), petitioner had voluntarily deposited sum of Rs 50 crores. said deposit was made before Assessing Officer. Thereafter, petitioner had approached this Court by way of WP(C) 5405/2013, in which order was passed on 30.08.2013, whereby petitioner was required to deposit further sum of Rs 100 crores. That deposit was also made and writ petition was finally disposed of on 04.09.2013. All this happened before order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 3. As noted above, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has allowed some of grounds raised by petitioner and reduced demanded amount to approximately Rs 327 crores. Against this, petitioner has filed above mentioned appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. On 07.04.2014, notice was issued by Tribunal to respondents in said appeal. On 11.04.2014, Tribunal, in view of fact that petitioner had already deposited sum of Rs 150 crores, granted stay of balance amount for period of six months or till disposal of appeal, whichever was earlier. Thereafter, stay was extended by Tribunal on 29.10.2014 for further period of six months. By virtue of decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of CIT v. Maruti Suzuki (India) Limited: WP(C) 5086/2013 decided on 21.02.2014, it has been made clear that Tribunal has no authority to extend period of WP(C) 3500/2015 & 3616/2015 Page 2 of 4 stay beyond period of 365 days from initial date of grant of stay. period of 365 days has elapsed on 10.04.2015 inasmuch as initial stay was granted on 11.04.2014. Therefore, petitioner cannot approach Tribunal for any further extension of stay. After extension of stay granted by Tribunal, matter has been listed on several occasions, but could not be taken up for hearing for reasons not attributable to petitioner. Now, appeal is listed for hearing on 19.05.2015. 4. It is in these circumstances that petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition, seeking grant of stay of recovery of balance amount in respect of assessment year 2009-10 till disposal of appeal by Tribunal. In Maruti Suzuki (supra) itself, it has been held that while Tribunal cannot grant any extension of stay beyond period of 365 days, there is no bar for grant of such relief by High Court, if it is of opinion that circumstances and ends of justice so warrant. 5. In circumstances narrated above, we feel that petitioner should be granted benefit of continuation of stay which had been granted by Tribunal. This would be in interest of justice. 6. Consequently, we direct that stay order granted by Tribunal will continue till disposal of appeal by Tribunal. We also request WP(C) 3500/2015 & 3616/2015 Page 3 of 4 Tribunal to expedite hearing of appeal so that same can be disposed of at early date. writ petition stands allowed to aforesaid extent. Dasti under signature of Court Master. BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J APRIL 21, 2015 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J SR WP(C) 3500/2015 & 3616/2015 Page 4 of 4 Honda Cars India Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax & Anr